Oh, I do not disagree with holding our politicians to a higher moral standard, especially the President. It is your thinking that is part of the problem, however, because what you are insinuating lies outside of the boundaries of reality. Every single politician, even the President, has violated moral code. Why should Clinton be impeached and none of the rest of them?
Another problem is this: who's moral standard do we hold these politicians to? And what should be done if they violate this moral standard, seeing that a moral standard is subject to point of view and not usually bound by law?
If we are going to discuss moral code, why not hold every President accountable and have a long, drawn out and expensive tax-payer funded trial for Bush...who started a war that is *still* going on? Or does that only apply to Democrats that have extramarital affairs? Morally, he could have taken the Christian high ground and given forgiveness to his enemies, like Christ taught...but he opted to turn the middle east into his personal bombing zone instead.
So, again: Lamest political bullshit ever, because that trial and impeachment attempt was merely a political witch hunt.

So, it's acceptable to lie because everyone else is also lying? That's a great line of thinking...

Not surprised you channeled the "But Bush..." defense, since your position is wrong.

we take moral stands on many issues, we have to decide as a society what is right and what is wrong. In this case the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control to some extent. So the vocal minority of the NRA needs to bow down to the majority and accept it. Otherwise what the hell kind of "democracy" are you living in?

I would disagree with you seeing as how the majority of bills designed for gun control get shot down and even the few that do pass are only able to do so when a major gun related trauma occurs.

I do however support minor gun control such as a law forcing gun manufactures to come up with preventive measures that would stop these weapons from being used by anyone other than their registered owners, I also support a ban on handguns simply because they are used in the majority of criminal cases that involve guns simply because they are so easy to conceal

Hell I even support law that makes registered gun owners accountable for crimes committed with their guns even if the gun was stolen simply to influence them to take more proactive measures to secure their firearms.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 11:40 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Aeluron

That would definitely reduce stolen gun murders. Then again the whole fingerprint recognition and voice recogniton would likely have more effect on other things unrelated to Gun control. Even then I think Guns or rather murders and all that stuff would still be a issue.

That's a dark path to walk on.

Not really as I think a centralized Dna/fingerprint database should exist and contain the samples of every American citizen "taken at birth" as well as when the register to vote. (and of course when buying/renewing the registration of a gun)

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 11:44 PM ----------

Originally Posted by PhaelixWW

It's been a lot longer than 20 years. The AR-15, for example, was first sold in the civilian market 50 years ago.

This also came just after the peak in basically every category of crimes in 1992. There was a lot more public demand for some kind of action. It still barely passed, which is appropriate considering the fact that it didn't really address the real issues.

In the last twenty years, though, pretty much all types of crime are down 40-60%. So the political climate is somewhat different, or it would be if the various media and the Obama Administration weren't riding the immediate emotional climate for all that it's worth.

It should also be noted that in countries who have banned firearms completely the crime rate has jumped by over 40% however gun related deaths have dropped by a large margin (simply because your much likely to commit a crime when their is no resistance and less likely to kill anyone for the same reason)

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 11:49 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Seezer

Oh, so now we're left wondering if it happened or not? We could go down the line of American presidents and wonder if they were banging chicks on the side. How hilarious. Nice logic.

Who really cares as long as my leadership is not changing policy in order to get some ass I sure as hell don't care.
Now if he had sacrificed the well-being of the entire nation to get in a women's pants I might then argue against those actions.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 11:53 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Tinykong

Except, he lied. That why he was impeached. Just because he wasn't removed from office doesn't prove that he didn't lie. Hilarious that people forget about that little detail.

Yeah he lied about cheating on his wife something that has no repercussions for the rest of the country.

Bush on the otherhand told a much bigger lie "They have Wmd's"
Nobody ever threatened to impeach him for that lie so it should show you just how ass backwards the priorities of this country are.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 12:01 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Tinykong

Maybe you don't care, but I was pointing out that the government takes it seriously. You can lose your security clearance, and therefore job, for doing exactly what Clinton did. It calls into question your ethics and reliability. Except with Clinton...he's Clinton, so he doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.

Maybe because even though he lied it was quite clear the the public wanted him as their leader as it's not exactly news to us that our leaders lie to us and his lie in no way effected us (government has many stupid regulations) that don't get the support of the people.

I mean shit being only 30 I see him as the best president in my lifetime and I remember him for all the good he did, if extra marital affairs were what kept his mind clear to accomplish such tasks we should of been providing him with hookers and inaugurated him for life as others in his shoes have accomplished far less by doing far more immoral things.

Bush did not lie. He was lied to, and wasn't smart enough to recognize it. He shared all of the intel he was given with Congress to get them to vote for war. They all had the chance to stop it, but fell for it too.

Originally Posted by skrump

Nobody ever threatened to impeach him for that lie so it should show you just how ass backwards the priorities of this country are.

AHAHAHAHAHAhaha. Wrong.

I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.

Originally Posted by belfpala

I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

There are a lot of things that are downright untrue that are said about Bush. This is not one of those things.

I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.

Originally Posted by belfpala

I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

On Topic..
I think it was pretty awesome of Clinton to rise up and speak in such a manner, and everything he said I felt very proud to read. I've never really had anything against the guy beyond his failure leading up to 9/11.

This really is a perfect time for Obama to push a mental health and education reform, but instead we are going to fight over two extremes of a subject that has never gone over well in the country.